Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 04:43:43 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:41:05 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:04:03 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:53:20 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:


Mean to work inside that narrow a space.

Give me a break. Today I planted B&B clump amelanchier canadensis with ball dimensions of 24 x 24 x 18 inches of water saturated clay. At about 110 lbs per cubic foot (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html), this thing came in at between 500 and 600 Lbs, there is a slight taper to the cut so it's not a full 6 Ft^3. I had to hoist it about 250 ft to the planting location with an appliance dolly, dig a level hole to relatively precise dimensions, wrestle it into the hole, level it, flood it with 20 gals water, berm it, mulch it, admire it- about a two hour job- dunno why it always takes me so long.

Relative fun. I spent about 9 hours last weekend trying to fix the
leak in the living room ceiling. I've been battling this one for 15
years, and have got damned good at sheetrock repair.

Do you have any idea what the peak rainfall rate was? I heard the total there was only about 1.5", but, if it all comes down at once, it causes problems. A flat roof is anything less than 3 in 12 rise to run, they're non-trivial and require more than just slapping down a membrane.

I doubt that it ever hit 1" per hour. But our house looks down into a
wind tunnel called The Alamany Gap, so we get bursts of fat drops
going 50 MPH horizontally. That drives water into every nook and
cranny; sort of like having standing water on the *side* of the house.

Most roofs here are flat, with no visible pitch. I can walk most of
the block on peoples' roofs. The deck is basically a flat roof, too.
Tar and gravel construction.

There's a flat, roofed deck just above, with a sliding glass door. A
couple years ago, I had the whole deck re-roofed and a new sliding
door assembly installed. It still leaked.

1. Why are all contractors such jerks?

2. Why are all consumer products, regardless of price, such crap?

The roofing material should have gone UNDER the door frame. It didn't.

Well, it's not the roofing material but the "flashing" that's the problem. Grace is the de facto leader in state of the art flashing products.

https://grace.com/construction/en-us/Documents/TP-073J-V40.pdf

(surprisingly HomeDepot actually carries it...)

...is one example of their conformable, self-adhering, and easily installed product. Sounds like you need to lap it 4-6" minimum.

Too late now! I'd have to remove the entire sliding door thingie to
get under it.

People don't do carpentry any more, they use construction adhesive.
Makes things hard to work on. Trim boards come off with a chisel, one
wood sliver at a time.

The door frame is a bunch of insanely complex plastic extrusions,
designed to trap water in every possible place.

Among other things, I seriously hacked the door frame with a Dremel to
make channels to let the water out. A lot came out.

That doesn't sound right...Sounds like the door frame is too low on the roof deck. Tell the whiz you want an internal open gutter installed along the entire length of wall of the door, you'll need some kind of perforated metal grate covering the part where you step out the door. ( and this gutter needs slope -duh)

The frame is about 3" up, so it's not getting drowned. The projectile
water is hitting the glass, filling the channal below, and then
getting into the complex plastic structure.

So many things that I buy need to be redesigned. Consumer products are
such crap.

(I thought you'd enjoy a good bitchy world-gone-to-hell rant.)



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Syd Rumpo]

On 14/12/2014 00:05, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:

Bill has next to no company here that buys into his green views. Its not as if this is a dumb newsgroup.

Lets try being real here.

1. Hardly anyone here agrees with your green views
2. Hardly anyone here is going to agree with them

<snip>

I do, broadly. Where I differ is that it all seems inevitable, I don't
really care as much, and there little point debating with the
'religious' right.

They all seem to be saying, "If you alter the constituents of the
primary fluid in which climate operates, then nothing at all will
happen, inshallah."

Cheers
--
Syd

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:31:08 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:53:13 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Today's HoneyDo Project

Too many glasses, had to add...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/PantryWineGlassRack.jpg

Mounted 18" down from ceiling (9' ceiling) so I can reach ;-)

48" wide by 22" deep

Mean to work inside that narrow a space.

...Jim Thompson

I see the bin labels are the large print edition. ;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Yep. Brother P-Touch label maker.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/16/2014 6:01 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 20:46:16 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 15:56:00 UTC+11, Toyin wrote:
I need a consultant to help me with my project for a fee. I
would like to use a 555 timer circuit to generate a variable 1
to 5 minute timer to alternate between 2 bank of batteries that
are connected to a charger and a load. There are four switches
where two are on when the other two are off. Please send me a
private email to<olutoyin at yahoo dot com> if you are
interested and can help. Thanks!

I'll provide advice for free. The 555 isn't really suited for
producing 1 minute to 5 minute time intervals. The CMOS versions
have high enough input impedance to make the idea practicable,
but keeping a printed circuit board clean enough to exploit this
isn't all that practical.

This really is a job for single chip microprocessor clocked by a
32,768 Hz watch crystal. It will give you more accurate time
intervals, and will be less tricky to get working.

Beg to differ; one 555 running at (say) 1KC can drive a second one
set like a 30:1 divider which in turn can drive a third set like a
divider, etc; can get down to days with good accuracy.. But the
micro gives excellent precision and accuracy with no RC tweaking.

I think you've just gone mad. Iterating 555's just gives a linearly
increasing delay, not a multiplication.

He's talking about injection locking the slower ones. The problem is
that the slowest one still has all the problems of a free-running 555 at
that speed.

If the OP can't design his own 555 circuit, a 4060 is probably good
medicine.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:41:09 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:04:03 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:53:20 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:


Mean to work inside that narrow a space.

Give me a break. Today I planted B&B clump amelanchier canadensis with ball dimensions of 24 x 24 x 18 inches of water saturated clay. At about 110 lbs per cubic foot (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html), this thing came in at between 500 and 600 Lbs, there is a slight taper to the cut so it's not a full 6 Ft^3. I had to hoist it about 250 ft to the planting location with an appliance dolly, dig a level hole to relatively precise dimensions, wrestle it into the hole, level it, flood it with 20 gals water, berm it, mulch it, admire it- about a two hour job- dunno why it always takes me so long.

Relative fun. I spent about 9 hours last weekend trying to fix the
leak in the living room ceiling. I've been battling this one for 15
years, and have got damned good at sheetrock repair.

There's a flat, roofed deck just above, with a sliding glass door. A
couple years ago, I had the whole deck re-roofed and a new sliding
door assembly installed. It still leaked.

1. Why are all contractors such jerks?

2. Why are all consumer products, regardless of price, such crap?

The roofing material should have gone UNDER the door frame. It didn't.

People don't do carpentry any more, they use construction adhesive.
Makes things hard to work on. Trim boards come off with a chisel, one
wood sliver at a time.

The door frame is a bunch of insanely complex plastic extrusions,
designed to trap water in every possible place.

Among other things, I seriously hacked the door frame with a Dremel to
make channels to let the water out. A lot came out.

It doesn't rain here all summer, so the first winter storm, all the
streets flood, all the hills slide, all the roofs leak, all at once.
Sandbags everywhere in The Mission. People forget how to drive in the
rain and have to re-learn it.

At least there's snow in the mountains, which makes it worth it.

Check all the flashing. The only roof leak that drove me nuts trying
to find turned out to be wind-driven rain going sideways under the
flashing that was located between the flat patio roof and the sloped
portion over the kitchen.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, December 15, 2014 8:41:05 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

There's a flat, roofed deck just above, with a sliding glass door. A
couple years ago, I had the whole deck re-roofed and a new sliding
door assembly installed. It still leaked.

How certain is it that this is a leak? Condensation could cause
soggy drywall under a cold roof surface. That's why there's
ventilation for most roof structures. Convection-type
ventilation mightn't work well on a flat roof...

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 01:22:47 UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:46:26 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 16/12/2014 2:55 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 5:56:12 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 02:40:34 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:

It's not particularly clever to develop a new market with a product
than can be undercut by a fairly obvious investment. You may may not
have a competitor when you open up the market, but you'll certainly
acquire competitors as soon as you've demonstrated that there's money
to be made with your kind of product.

I do not understand your reasoning.

No surprises there.

If you have little money, are you not better off developing a new
market with a product that can be undercut by a fairly obvious
investment than to not do anything at all?

The usual fate of somebody who arrives first in a new market with a
product that can easily be improved on is that the first competitor who
shows up wipes the floor with them.

I was intimately involved with the first electron beam testers. The
first company to make a specialised electron beam tester - Lintech - had
the misfortune to be run by a guy - Graham Plows - who was more
interested in being able to sell his machine to new customers than in
making it reliable and easy to use for people who were using the machine
after it had been sold. He was under-capitalised (largely by his wife's
uncle), and when Schlumberger got interested in the market, they got
Neal Richardson - who had worked for Lintech for long enough to know
exactly what was wrong with Lintech's machine - to develop a better
mouse-trap.

Mike Engelhardt - now of LTSpice - was involved and has mentioned that
Schlumberger got 98% of the electron beam tester market.

What I know is that Lintech never sold an electron beam tester after the
Schlumberger machine hit the market, and stopped trading two years
later, once they'd shipped the last of the machines they'd sold before
Schlumberger had queered their pitch.

After Lintech had gone bust, Graham Plows became the technical director
at Cambridge Instruments for a couple of years. As long as he wasn't
thinking about how he - personally - would sell a particular machine,
his technical judgement was pretty sound, but he screwed up the
development of the machine that was intended to do to Schlumberger what
Schlumberger had done to Lintech, by one of his sales-motivated
"technical choices".

There are a lot of ways of screwing up new-product introductions, but
going in under-capitalised is one of the less clever ways of wasting
your time.

As soon as you have demonstrated there is money to be made, you
will either have some money or you will be in a position where you
can borrow money.

True.

In any case as soon as you have demonstrated there is money to be
made, you will have competitors regardless of how you started.

And they will have better access to capital than you had. They'll have
started later than you did, so the trick is not to leave them enough
margin so that they can hog the market with their better-financed
development.

Doing something seems much more clever than not doing anything.
If you do not develop the new market, it will be done by someone else.
It might be a few years later, but there are enough people in the
world that someone will think of that product.

In the electron beam tester case, the market went away after a few
years. Semiconductor simulations got fast enough and cheap enough that
integrated circuits started working on first silicon, and didn't have to
respun, with new mask sets, before you had a commercial product.

The electron beam tester was originally great for fault-finding new
integrated circuits, and the Lintech machine knocked some months off
Motorola's development of the MC68000 chip set, but once simulation
moved the fault-finding into the virtual world, the electron beam
testers were reducing to validating the mathematical models fed into the
simulation programs.

So what you are saying is that poor management will produce poor results.

"Good management" is only obviously good after the event. In a lot of cases it's lucky management whose essentially random choices happened to work out well. Hindsight makes the choices look "wise" rather than expedient - which is what they mostly are.

It's difficult to argue that Graham Plows initial insistence on making his electron beam tester easy to sell was unwise, but once he had a two year order book he should have diverted some engineering effort into making the machine reliable.

> Instead of your example why not take the example of Nucor. Nucor started making bar joists with pretty much no capital. At the time their biggest asset was a large tax loss. But Nucor decided to use their profits from making bar joists to improve their profit margin and bought an electric furnace to melt scrap and make their own angle iron and rebar.

Buying an electric furnace is not a small investment.

> And they produced enough steel from scrap that they started selling structural steel. Later they built the first steel mill that cast thin slabs and ran the thin slabs into a rolling mill with out having to reheat the slabs.

Not a small investment either, nor risk free. That didn't happen into 1989 (according the the Nucor web-site).

Pilkington invented the "float glass process" between 1953 and 1955 - the concept of moving hot slabs of material around was thus well-known long before 1989 and was certainly well known in the UK in the early 1970's.

To keep this brief Nucor is now the largest steel producer in the U.S. and still in the bar joist business.

http://www.nucor.com/

So what. It's still a history of massive capital investment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:54:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

To keep this brief Nucor is now the largest steel producer in the U.S. and still in the bar joist business.

http://www.nucor.com/

So what. It's still a history of massive capital investment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
\

Yes massive capital investments , but that was all after starting with very little capital and making Bar Joists.
To go into making bar joists about all you need is a welder and then make some hydraulics to bend the rebar.

Dan

 

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:03:12 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 15:15:55 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:57:31 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

This is a matter of opinion. That 97% of the top 300 climatologists accept the evidence for anthoprogenic global warming comes from the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science, who don't publish either "tripe" or "propaganda".

Feynmann described the National Academy of Sciences as a fat-headed self-
congratulatory society of fatheads congratulating themselves on their
head-fatness. He refused to join--too many fatheads.

Any simpleton can google "97 percent climate" and see no where near 97 percent of climbots endorsed your notion of catastrophic AGW.

Here's your shoddy study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed NO POSITION on AGW, 32.6%
endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the
cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW,
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global
warming."

Wrong, That's *your* shoddy study from "Environment Research Letters" - not the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, which I did specify as my source.

You got me. I didn't imagine there could be two crap pseudometastudies by pathological liars both producing the same discredited 97% figure.

It makes sense though--they pick their data to match their target endpoints.
That's how they get their models to agree.

The simpleton has googled and come up with the wrong paper.

The paper I was referring to was
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

That paper's criterion for "expertise" is number of papers published, and
number of citations of their papers. Do we even need to go deeper? No we
don't.

They might as well have tallied the number of Facebook likes and "retweets"
on Twitter, may the biggest gossip win.

which was published in the "Proceeding of the (US) National Academy of Sciences" on December 22, 2009 which has a rather higher impact factor than "Environment Research Letters".

Your paper is an obvious "me too" published three years later, on 15 May 2013

I don't weigh "prestige" in arbitrating scientific fact. But the raving
AGW nutcase author of your esteemed b.s. gives it first priority--that's
his bread and butter.

Here he is explaining, Gruberesque--as an IPCC-insider--that his group
overstated sea rise confidence deliberately to make a more compelling
political statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hbkFDy_DA8

So, he admits to fraud with political motivation, and he's not even
ashamed of it. Like Gruber, he's proud.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:19:58 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:53:20 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
Today's HoneyDo Project

Too many glasses, had to add...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/PantryWineGlassRack.jpg

Mounted 18" down from ceiling (9' ceiling) so I can reach ;-)

48" wide by 22" deep

Mean to work inside that narrow a space.

...Jim Thompson

OT, but are honeydews the melon or the secretion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeydew_%28secretion%29

George H.

Honey_Do_ in other words a project for SWMBO ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:20:41 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:19:58 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:53:20 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
Today's HoneyDo Project

Too many glasses, had to add...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/PantryWineGlassRack.jpg

Mounted 18" down from ceiling (9' ceiling) so I can reach ;-)

48" wide by 22" deep

Mean to work inside that narrow a space.

...Jim Thompson

OT, but are honeydews the melon or the secretion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeydew_%28secretion%29

George H.

Honey_Do_ in other words a project for SWMBO ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I know what it means but...

I thought that was

SWMNDAE

(Single White Male Never Divorced, Always Enslaved...)

Glance at it quick and squinty eyed, and it looks like you are her
Sunday treat.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 09:50:42 UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:54:49 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:



To keep this brief Nucor is now the largest steel producer in the U.S. and still in the bar joist business.

http://www.nucor.com/

So what. It's still a history of massive capital investment.

Yes massive capital investments , but that was all after starting with very little capital and making Bar Joists.
To go into making bar joists about all you need is a welder and then make some hydraulics to bend the rebar.

But you were proposing that I go into the domestic lighting market - which is a large consumer market - with no capital.

Bar joists are individually tailored to particular construction jobs - it is, or can be, bespoke one-off manufacturing, right at the opposite end of the spectrum.

You probably don't see the problem, because you seem to be as thick as a brick, but the rest of the world isn't quite as slow on the up-take.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:56:47 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 04:43:43 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:41:05 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:04:03 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:53:20 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:


Mean to work inside that narrow a space.

Give me a break. Today I planted B&B clump amelanchier canadensis with ball dimensions of 24 x 24 x 18 inches of water saturated clay. At about 110 lbs per cubic foot (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html), this thing came in at between 500 and 600 Lbs, there is a slight taper to the cut so it's not a full 6 Ft^3. I had to hoist it about 250 ft to the planting location with an appliance dolly, dig a level hole to relatively precise dimensions, wrestle it into the hole, level it, flood it with 20 gals water, berm it, mulch it, admire it- about a two hour job- dunno why it always takes me so long.

Relative fun. I spent about 9 hours last weekend trying to fix the
leak in the living room ceiling. I've been battling this one for 15
years, and have got damned good at sheetrock repair.

Do you have any idea what the peak rainfall rate was? I heard the total there was only about 1.5", but, if it all comes down at once, it causes problems. A flat roof is anything less than 3 in 12 rise to run, they're non-trivial and require more than just slapping down a membrane.

I doubt that it ever hit 1" per hour. But our house looks down into a
wind tunnel called The Alamany Gap, so we get bursts of fat drops
going 50 MPH horizontally. That drives water into every nook and
cranny; sort of like having standing water on the *side* of the house.

Most roofs here are flat, with no visible pitch. I can walk most of
the block on peoples' roofs. The deck is basically a flat roof, too.
Tar and gravel construction.






There's a flat, roofed deck just above, with a sliding glass door. A
couple years ago, I had the whole deck re-roofed and a new sliding
door assembly installed. It still leaked.

1. Why are all contractors such jerks?

2. Why are all consumer products, regardless of price, such crap?

The roofing material should have gone UNDER the door frame. It didn't.

Well, it's not the roofing material but the "flashing" that's the problem. Grace is the de facto leader in state of the art flashing products.

https://grace.com/construction/en-us/Documents/TP-073J-V40.pdf

(surprisingly HomeDepot actually carries it...)

...is one example of their conformable, self-adhering, and easily installed product. Sounds like you need to lap it 4-6" minimum.


Too late now! I'd have to remove the entire sliding door thingie to
get under it.



People don't do carpentry any more, they use construction adhesive.
Makes things hard to work on. Trim boards come off with a chisel, one
wood sliver at a time.

The door frame is a bunch of insanely complex plastic extrusions,
designed to trap water in every possible place.

Among other things, I seriously hacked the door frame with a Dremel to
make channels to let the water out. A lot came out.

That doesn't sound right...Sounds like the door frame is too low on the roof deck. Tell the whiz you want an internal open gutter installed along the entire length of wall of the door, you'll need some kind of perforated metal grate covering the part where you step out the door. ( and this gutter needs slope -duh)

The frame is about 3" up, so it's not getting drowned. The projectile
water is hitting the glass, filling the channal below, and then
getting into the complex plastic structure.

So many things that I buy need to be redesigned. Consumer products are
such crap.

(I thought you'd enjoy a good bitchy world-gone-to-hell rant.)

Get a less complicated door and install it with "pan flashing."

http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/information-sheets/pan-flashing-for-exterior-wall-openings

The door you have now either defeats the pan flashing or the pan flashing was not installed or both.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Robert Baer]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 20:46:16 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 15:56:00 UTC+11, Toyin wrote:
I need a consultant to help me with my project for a fee. I would like to use a 555 timer circuit to generate a variable 1 to 5 minute timer to alternate between 2 bank of batteries that are connected to a charger and a load. There are four switches where two are on when the other two are off. Please send me a private email to<olutoyin at yahoo dot com> if you are interested and can help. Thanks!

I'll provide advice for free. The 555 isn't really suited for producing 1 minute to 5 minute time intervals. The CMOS versions have high enough input impedance to make the idea practicable, but keeping a printed circuit board clean enough to exploit this isn't all that practical.

This really is a job for single chip microprocessor clocked by a 32,768 Hz watch crystal. It will give you more accurate time intervals, and will be less tricky to get working.

Beg to differ; one 555 running at (say) 1KC can drive a second one
set like a 30:1 divider which in turn can drive a third set like a
divider, etc; can get down to days with good accuracy..
But the micro gives excellent precision and accuracy with no RC tweaking.

I think you've just gone mad. Iterating 555's just gives a linearly increasing delay, not a multiplication.

NOBODY said anything about multiplying. Dividing is an inverse function.

 

[Robert Baer]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 12/16/2014 6:01 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 20:46:16 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 15:56:00 UTC+11, Toyin wrote:
I need a consultant to help me with my project for a fee. I
would like to use a 555 timer circuit to generate a variable 1
to 5 minute timer to alternate between 2 bank of batteries that
are connected to a charger and a load. There are four switches
where two are on when the other two are off. Please send me a
private email to<olutoyin at yahoo dot com> if you are
interested and can help. Thanks!

I'll provide advice for free. The 555 isn't really suited for
producing 1 minute to 5 minute time intervals. The CMOS versions
have high enough input impedance to make the idea practicable,
but keeping a printed circuit board clean enough to exploit this
isn't all that practical.

This really is a job for single chip microprocessor clocked by a
32,768 Hz watch crystal. It will give you more accurate time
intervals, and will be less tricky to get working.

Beg to differ; one 555 running at (say) 1KC can drive a second one
set like a 30:1 divider which in turn can drive a third set like a
divider, etc; can get down to days with good accuracy.. But the
micro gives excellent precision and accuracy with no RC tweaking.

I think you've just gone mad. Iterating 555's just gives a linearly
increasing delay, not a multiplication.


He's talking about injection locking the slower ones. The problem is
that the slowest one still has all the problems of a free-running 555 at
that speed.

If the OP can't design his own 555 circuit, a 4060 is probably good
medicine.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Absolutely!
I just stuck with the 555 to make a point that they are useable, and
with the right division ratio (no more than 30:1) and stable parts, one
can get many hours for timing.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:32:04 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

But you were proposing that I go into the domestic lighting market - which is a large consumer market - with no capital.

Bar joists are individually tailored to particular construction jobs - it is, or can be, bespoke one-off manufacturing, right at the opposite end of the spectrum.

You probably don't see the problem, because you seem to be as thick as a brick, but the rest of the world isn't quite as slow on the up-take.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Speaking of being thick as a brick. I never said zip about any lighting market. My comments were all about how your mindset seems to be to do nothing.

You obviously can not tell the players without a score card.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 10:31:07 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 1:03:12 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 15:15:55 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 6:57:31 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

This is a matter of opinion. That 97% of the top 300 climatologists accept the evidence for anthoprogenic global warming comes from the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science, who don't publish either "tripe" or "propaganda".

Feynmann described the National Academy of Sciences as a fat-headed self-
congratulatory society of fatheads congratulating themselves on their
head-fatness. He refused to join--too many fatheads.

He might have been right when he said it. Academic elites can be mutual admiration societies. The particular members that I've run into weren't fatheads, and weren't into self-congratulation. Feynman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

died in 1988, so he's talking about an earlier version of the National Academy of Science. He might also have been shirking the editorial duties that come with being a member of the US National Academy of Science - the Proceedings draw on the members of the academy to act as editors on papers in their particular area of expertise, which can be a chore, but may explain why the Proceedings is a top journal with a high impact factor.

Any simpleton can google "97 percent climate" and see no where near 97 percent of climbots endorsed your notion of catastrophic AGW.

Here's your shoddy study:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed NO POSITION on AGW, 32.6%
endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the
cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW,
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global
warming."

Wrong, That's *your* shoddy study from "Environment Research Letters" - not the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, which I did specify as my source.

You got me. I didn't imagine there could be two crap psuedometastudies by pathological liars both producing the same discredited 97% figure.

The fact that the one you found was in the wrong journal would have prompted some curiousity in anybody with a functional imagination. You have been hanging around with the Tea Party too long, and have had to suppress your "this doesn't actually ring true" responses

Has the 97% figure been discredited? There will be denialist claims to that effect, but you'd better use your less-than-impressive search skills to come up with an actual claim (which I confidently expect to be able to shred)..

It makes sense though--they pick their data to match their target endpoints.
That's how they get their models to agree.

That may be how you work, but academics who try that get scuttled by real data.

The simpleton has googled and come up with the wrong paper.

The paper I was referring to was
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

That paper's criterion for "expertise" is number of papers published, and
number of citations of their papers. Do we even need to go deeper? No we
don't.

You've got a better criterion? Do tell us what it is. And the world as well, since we could all do with a better system.

No academics likes citation counting as a measure of quality, but it's like democracy - a bad system but the best available.

They might as well have tallied the number of Facebook likes and "retweets"
on Twitter, may the biggest gossip win.

This rather ignores the peer-review system, which Twitter and Facebook seem to have skipped. You don't understand stuff like that, any more than Fred Pearce did, but it matters.

which was published in the "Proceeding of the (US) National Academy of Sciences" on December 22, 2009 which has a rather higher impact factor than "Environment Research Letters".

Your paper is an obvious "me too" published three years later, on 15 May 2013

I don't weigh "prestige" in arbitrating scientific fact.

You need to know something about the literature to know good journals from bad journals, and you have to be in habit assessing papers for reliablity to be in a position to realise what "prestige" means in a particular field.

Since your habit is to assess papers on whether they suit your argument, rather than on the quality of the content, it's unsurprising that you haven't grasped the concept of journal quality.

But the raving AGW nutcase author of your esteemed b.s. gives it first
priority--that's his bread and butter.

Both the papers in question are multi-author. Which one are you identifying as a "ravimg AGW nutcase"?

You are probably objecting to the late Stephen H. Schneider. His willingness to present the most compelling - rather than the most scrupulously correct - case for anthropogenic global warming does strikes me as unfortunate, but as neither dishonest nor unreasonable.

On the specific case of sea level rise his argument has particular force. The sea level rise we are seeing now is essentially that due to the thermal expansion of the oceans, and it's not very large and very predictable.

The sea-level rise we need to worry about is the 10 metres of rise currently tied up in the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. These are sliding off into the ocean, as they have been doing for some millions of years now - though the GRACE satellites show that there's a net mass loss at the moment.

As the climate gets warmer, they'll probably slide off faster, as the Laurentian ice sheet did at the end of the last ice age - which may have been what dumped enough fresh water into the North Atlantic to stop the Gulf Stream for 1300+/-70 years about 11,000 years ago (the Younger Dryas).

Modelling what's going on at the bottom of the ice sheets - which determines how fast they slide - is tricky. We don't know much about what the bottom of an ice sheet looks like, or how it behaves. Ignoring the risk that large chunks of the ice sheet might slide off unexpectedly strikes me as irresponsible, but because the IPCC can't model the risk, that's pretty much what they are doing.

Here he is explaining, Gruberesque--as an IPCC-insider--that his group
overstated sea rise confidence deliberately to make a more compelling
political statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hbkFDy_DA8

So, he admits to fraud with political motivation, and he's not even
ashamed of it. Like Gruber, he's proud.

Some Italian geologists got convicted of not warning the public convincingly enough of the possibility of earthquakes that actually happened. They got off on appeal. Schneider's attitude seems to be that you have to use your judgement about what the real risks are and how you convey them to the public.

That's about as far away from fraud as you can get. Since the message that he wanted to spread is one that you don't like - because it doesn't suit your politics, not because you know anything about the science - you claim that he's a fraud, just as every other denialist ratbag does.

From the wikipedia piece on him

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[11])."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:56:12 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 02:40:34 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 1:03:52 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 15 December 2014 22:59:35 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:27:10 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 15 December 2014 19:13:06 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:33:01 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 11:05:51 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com
wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC, meow...@care2.com > > > > > > > wrote:

an affordable heating control system that considers all available inputs, eg including whether windows & doors are open, and uses passive heating & cooling as part of the operational strategy as well as active heat.

You'd have to put sensors - and probably activators - on your doors and windows, and it will be a while before that happens.

What you seem to be proposing is a capital-intensive development project in an area where at one big corporation - Philips - is already active. Getting a job with them might make sense. Setting up in competition doesn't.

Lots of corporations and individuals are working on better and new products. They aren't all capital intensive.

I'd like you to explain how a development of as mass-market consumer product isn't going to be capital intensive, but you are NT and explanation isn't your strong suit.

If you dont know how to design a system that either expert end users or a company can put together without spending megabucks then shrug, I'm not about to show you how. Lots of startups & individuals have done it.

If you don't appreciate the costs involved in engineering for really large-scale production of mass-market items, there's absolutely no reason to take your comments seriously.

You dont need to make the first version 'really large-scale production.' It needs to prove itself enough to get potential investors interested. Or if your goal is purely political, to interest experimenters that will build it then improve it.

You might read about Henry Ford's relatively slow progression into mass production as an example of how an individual (with a lot of investors) did it.

Work out what you could design and design it. If other people out there also think it has value you then have options to exploit it.

I'd have to think that it might have value before I'd put time energy into designing it. In reality I'm aware - as you don't seem to be - that there's quite a lot of capital being invested there already. All the low-hanging fruit has probably been plucked.

You really think no new stuff will come out developed on a shoestring? C'mon.

Not if it's going to compete in a large-scale consumer market - that's ASIC territory, and you can't develop an ASIC on a shoestring.

At the risk of stating the obvious, product sales scale up over time, you don't need to begin with an ASIC when you have no competitor.

It's not particularly clever to develop a new market with a product than can be undercut by a fairly obvious investment. You may may not have a competitor when you open up the market, but you'll certainly acquire competitors as soon as you've demonstrated that there's money to be made with your kind of product.

You'll also acquire interested potential investors.

Got any more seriously bad advice to dish out?

I guess you don't have the skills.

I've got enough skill to detect when a windbag is bluffing about stuff he doesn't understand.

clearly not

People have been designing and inventing things for centuries. I assumed you had these skills.

I've got a couple of patents. I couldn't have financed any of the inventions, or even paid the patent lawyers to cover the cost of the patenting process. My father had 25 patents and knew quite a it about the costs involved - he didn't pay them, but he was high enough in the company that did pay for the patents that he knew exactly what they cost.

One of my friends eventually made a couple of million dollars out of a patent he'd taken out - rather against the advice he'd got from me and my father (which he much later acknowledged to be most realistic of all the advice he'd been given). For a couple of years the ownership of that patent was uncertain, and my friend didn't have the capital to do much development, but once the ownership was clarified, there was something for a venture capitalist to buy into.

I don't know what your skills are, but from what little you've said here "non-existent" would probably cover them.

incorrect


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 20:23:02 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:

On Monday, December 15, 2014 10:56:12 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 02:40:34 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 1:03:52 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 15 December 2014 22:59:35 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com wrote:
On Monday, December 15, 2014 11:27:10 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 15 December 2014 19:13:06 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com
wrote:
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:33:01 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 11:05:51 UTC+11, meow...@care2.com
wrote:
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 10:55:48 PM UTC,
meow...@care2.com wrote:

<snip>

I don't know what your skills are, but from what little you've said here "non-existent" would probably cover them.

incorrect

An unskilled response.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 17/12/2014 05:46, Don Y wrote:

Hi,

A group for which I'd built a small "computer lab" dropped me
a note, today, indicating that they have a donor (business)
willing to supply them with "newer" (but still not "current")
machines (these are desktops).

Apparently, they have been offered several different make/models
(end of year "donate stuff to charity and write it off!").
Other than physical size and appearance, they are clueless as to
how to make this decision.

*I*, OTOH, am just SLIGHTLY less clueless (I know more about
screwdrivers than PC's!)

Things like amount of RAM *installed* aren't issues (I can freely get
whatever RAM I need). Ditto size of disk drive, optical media, etc.
(I'm not so sure about the video cards, though...)

This leaves clock frequency and number of cores as the big issues.
But, Intel (and AMD) have polluted the CPU namespace with so many
different models -- Pentium D, M, Core Duo, Xeon, Athlon, Megatron,
etc. -- that I suspect even those numbers are apples and oranges.

Anyone care to venture a *brief* description of the relative strengths
of this alphabet soup? And, a rough guide as to how to *try* to
relate specs from one "family" to another? E.g., if all you're doing
is browsing the web, MHz may be a good indicator. OTOH, if you're
watching *videos* (without GPU accelerator), then ....? Doing CAD
work would favor...? etc.

Sorry, I realize this is probably one of those questions to which a
firm answer is probably wishful thinking. It would, however, also
benefit *me* to get a better understanding of the markets addressed
by each of these.

[Note: donated kit is usually AT LEAST a couple of years old. I will
have to see if I can get more refined information -- but, knowing *which*
machines are of interest will help limit the information requested
(Nobody wants to have to prepare a list of *everything* that they might
be willing to "part with" -- don't annoy the donors! :> )]

Simple solution is check the figure of merit on CPU benchmarks.
It isn't perfect since some CPUs excel at eg video transcoding.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Hyperthreading isn't an advantage unless the application is *very*
specific an extremely easy to parallelise. Most real problems go memory
bandwidth limited without using all the available CPU threads.

Anything with a figure of merit 3000+ will be OK for most basic uses
including small amounts of video editing - obviously the higher the
better. I prefer Intel CPUs myself but that is only because of past
experience with a batch of self immolating AMD ones.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown